Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court mandates new maps following liberal majority victory
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down State’s Legislative Maps
In a groundbreaking decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has invalidated the state’s legislative maps, just months after liberals gained a 4-3 advantage on the court. The ruling, made by the liberal justices in a 4-3 vote, declares that the current maps violate the state’s constitution and must be redrawn. This decision has been hailed by Democrats, who have long argued that the maps were rigged, while Republicans claim that the liberal justices had already made up their minds before the case was even brought.
“Given the language in the Constitution, the question before us is straightforward,” wrote Judge Jill J. Karofsky for the majority. “When legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts, do they consist of ’contiguous territory?’ We conclude that they do not.”
However, conservative Judge Annette Ziegler strongly disagreed with the ruling, accusing the liberal justices of damaging the state constitution and the judiciary as a whole. She stated, “The court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law, making no room, nor having any need, for longstanding practices, procedures, traditions, the law, or even their coequal fellow branches of government.”
One of the newly appointed liberal judges, Janet Protasiewicz, who campaigned on the platform that the maps were rigged and unfair, voted to discard the old maps. It is worth noting that she received support from George Soros during her campaign. Leftist groups challenged the Wisconsin maps immediately after Protasiewicz took office.
Republican state Sen. Duey Stroebel expressed little surprise at the ruling, stating, “She said while running for office that the maps were rigged. Now that they have control of the court, they legislate from the bench.”
Currently, the state legislature is controlled by Republicans, who hold a near supermajority in the Senate and are just two seats away from a veto-proof majority in the Assembly.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
Following the court’s decision, Democratic Governor Tony Evers expressed his agreement and accused Republicans of gerrymandering themselves into “comfortable, partisan majorities.” He stated, ”Wisconsin is a purple state, and I look forward to submitting maps to the Court that represent the makeup of our state. And I remain as optimistic as ever that, at long last, the gerrymandered maps Wisconsinites have endured for years might soon be history.”
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos predicted that the issue would likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court. He remarked, “The case was pre-decided before it was even brought. Sad day for Wisconsin when the state supreme court just said last year that the existing lines are constitutional. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the last word.”
How does gerrymandering impact the fairness and representation in a democratic system?
And principles of our judicial system.”
The decision arises from a long-standing legal battle over the redrawing of Wisconsin’s legislative districts, a process known as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party over another, resulting in distorted representation and often a lack of competitive elections.
In Wisconsin, the Republican-controlled legislature drew the legislative maps following the 2010 census. These maps heavily favored Republicans, allowing them to maintain a significant advantage in the state’s political landscape. Over the years, Democrats have argued that this manipulation of district boundaries undermines democratic representation and violates the state’s constitution.
The case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, known as Gill v. Whitford, was brought by a group of Democratic voters who claimed that the Republican-drawn maps illegally disadvantaged Democratic voters. In 2016, a panel of federal judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the maps unconstitutional.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the state. According to the ruling, the current maps were not drawn in a way that ensures “contiguous territory” as required by the state’s constitution. The court has given the Republican-controlled legislature until November 1 to redraw the maps in a fair and impartial manner.
This decision is a major victory for Democrats and voting rights activists who have long fought against gerrymandering as a tool for political manipulation. They argue that fair district maps will promote more competitive elections and ensure that voters have a more accurate reflection of their political preferences.
Republicans, on the other hand, have expressed disappointment and frustration with the ruling. They argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is politically motivated, citing the timing of the decision just months after the court’s liberal justices gained a majority. Republicans maintain that they have followed legal guidelines in drawing the maps and that this decision undermines the legitimacy of the court.
The impact of this decision extends beyond Wisconsin’s borders. Gerrymandering has long been a contentious issue across the United States, with both Democrats and Republicans engaging in the practice when they hold power. This ruling sets a precedent for future legal challenges against unfair district maps in other states and offers hope for those seeking a fairer and more representative political system.
In conclusion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the state’s legislative maps is a significant development in the ongoing fight against gerrymandering. While Democrats celebrate the ruling as a victory for fair representation, Republicans criticize it as politically motivated. Regardless of partisan perspectives, this decision has the potential to shape the future of redistricting and bolster efforts for a more inclusive and democratic electoral system across the nation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...